He writes, “Over the past several months, some politicians and activists have intensified their campaign to label the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts’ leadership as reflexively ‘pro-business.’ A close examination of these arguments reveals the claim to be little more than an inside-the-Beltway urban legend. But even more troubling than the misleading facts being presented is the broader, underlying message activists want to implant in the public’s mind. They want Americans to see the judiciary as a political body whose business verdicts are biased and harmful to our well-being.” Click here to read the rest.

Guest Commentary

A troubling trend has developed in white-collar crime cases where prosecutors either (i) use leverage outside of the case—that is, not based on the merits of the evidence—to secure a conviction, or (ii) stretch the traditional elements of criminal law to secure a conviction. One breathtaking example of both tactics is the so-called “Memorandum of Understanding” between the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (or what is now known as ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security). In this Memorandum of Understanding (or “MoU”) the government says that it: “Considers criminal violations of the Sherman Act . . . to be crimes involving moral turpitude, which may subject an alien to exclusion or deportation from the United States.”